G.R. No.

L-37673 March 31, 1933

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, pla!"#-app$ll$$,
%&.
POTEN'IANO TANEO, ($)$!(a!"-app$lla!".
FA'TS* Potenciano Tadeo live with his wife in his parent's house. While asleep, Tadeo suddenly got
up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, he wounded her in
the abdomen. Potenciano Taneo attacked Fred Tanner and Luis alinao and tried to attack his father
after which he wounded himself. Potenciano's wife who was then seven months pregnant, died !ve
days later as a result of her wound, and also the foetus which was asphy"iated in the mother's
womb. #n information for parricide was !led against Potenciano Taneo and was convicted
thereafter. $owever, the evidence shows that the defendant not only did not have any trouble with
his wife, but that he loved her dearly. %either did he have any dispute with the other victims, or
have any motive for assaulting them. The courts conclusion is that the defendant acted while in a
dream and his acts, with which he is charged, were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal
liability.
&''()* Whether or not involuntary acts are e"empted from criminal liability
$)L+* +ES. By virtue of the facts stated in the decision, Held: That the defendant acted
while in a dream and his acts, with which he is charged, were not voluntary in the sense
of entailing criminal liability. &n arriving at this conclusion, we are taking into consideration the
fact that the apparent lack of a motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean
that there are none, but that simply they are not known to us, for we cannot probe into depths of
one's conscience where they may be found, hidden away and inaccessible to our observation. We
are also conscious of the fact that an e"treme moral perversion may lead a man commit a crime
without a real motive but ,ust for the sake of committing it. -ut under the special circumstances of
the case, in which the victim was the defendant's own wife whom he dearly loved, and taking into
consideration the fact that the defendant tried to attack also his father, in whose house and under
whose protection he lived, besides attacking Tanner and alinao, his guests, whom he himself
invited as may be inferred from the evidence presented, we !nd not only a lack of motives for the
defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of, but also motives for not committing said
acts.
&n view of all these considerations, and reserving the ,udgment appealed from, the courts !nds that
the defendant is not criminally liable for the o.ense with which he is charged, and it is ordered that
he be con!ned in the /overnment insane asylum, whence he shall not be released until the director
thereof !nds that his liberty would no longer constitute a menace, with costs de o!cio. 'o ordered.
G.R. No. L-,,,- F$.r/ar0 12, 19--
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, pla!"#-app$ll$$,
%&.
MAN3EL 4ERONILLA, FILIPINO 5ELAS'O, POLI'ARPIO PA'3LDO, a!( 6A'INTO ADRIATI'O,
($)$!(a!"&-app$lla!"&.
RE+ES, 6.4.L., 6.*
1.'RIMINAL LA78 'RIMES 'OMMITTED 3PON ORDERS OF S3PERIOR OFFI'ERS8 LA'9 OF
'RIMINAL INTENT.:Where the accused acted upon orders of superior o0cers that they, as
military subordinates, could not 1uestion, and obeyed in good faith, without being aware of their
illegality, without any fault or negligence on their part, the act is not accompanied by criminal
intent. The ma"im is, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea2a crime is not committed if the mind
of the person performing the act complained of be innocent. 3(. '. vs. 4at5lico, 67 Phil., 89:;
People vs. Pacana, <: Phil., <7; 'ent. of the Tribunal 'upremo of 'pain, = >uly 677?; : >anuary 6@96;
A< arch 6@99; A6 Feb. 6@A6; A8 arch 6@A@B.
1
Fac"&* anuel -eronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino Celasco and >acinto #driatico !le an appeal
from the ,udgement of the #bra 4F&, which convicted them of murder for the e"ecution of #rsenio
-or,al, the elected mayor of La, PaD, #bra 3at the outbreak of warB, which was found to be aiding
the enemy.
-or,al moved to -angued because of death threats was succeeded by ilitary ayor anuel
-eronilla, who was appointed by Lt. 4ol. #rbold, regimental commander of the 68th &nfantry of the
Phil. #rmy, operating as guerilla unit in #bra. 'imultaneously upon his appointment, -eronilla
received a memorandum which authoriDed him to appoint a ,ury of 6A bolo men to try persons
accused of treason, espionage and aiding or abetting the enemy.
(pon the return of -or,al and his family to #bra, to escape bombing in -angued, he was placed
under custody and tried and sentenced to death by the ,ury based on various complaints made by
the residents. -eronilla reported this to 4ol. #rnold who replied, saying EF& can only compliment
you for your impartial but independent way of handling the whole case.G
Two years thereafter, -eronilla, along with the e"ecutioner, digger and ,ury, were indicted for the
murder of -or,al. 'oon after, President anuel Ho"as issued )"ecutive Proclamation 7, which
granted amnesty to persons who committed acts in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy
against persons aiding in the war e.orts of the enemy.
The rest of defendants applied and were granted amnesty, but -eronilla and others were convicted
on the grounds that the crime was made on purely personal motives and that the crime was
committed after the e"piration of time limit for amnesty proclamation.
I&&/$* WI% the defendantJappellantsK actions are covered by ,ustifying circumstances for
obedience to lawful order of superior
H$l(* Les. The accused acted upon orders of their superior o0cers, which as military subordinates,
they could not 1uestion and obeyed in good faith without the being aware of its illegality.
The evidence is su0cient to sustain the claim of the defense that arrest, prosecution and trial of
-or,al was done in pursuant to e"press orders of superiors. #dditionally, it could not be established
that -eronilla received the radiogram from 4olonel Colckmann, overall area commander, which
called attention to the illegality of -or,alKs conviction and sentence. $ad -eronilla known the
violation, he would not have dared to report it to #rnold. The conduct of the accused also does not
show malice on their part because of the conduct of the trial, defense through counsel given to
-or,al, suspension of trial based on doubts of illegality and death sentence review sent to the
superior o0cers.
4riminal intent then could not be established. The ma"im here is actus non facit reum, nisi mens
rea 34rime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of to be
innocentB.
#dditionally, the lower court should not have denied their claim to the bene!ts of the /uerilla
#mnesty Proclamation %o. 7 inspite of contradictory dates of liberation of La PaD, #bra. )ven if the
dates were contradictory, the court should have found for the -eronila, et al because if there are
Eany reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls within the 3amnestyB proclamation should
be resolved in favor of the accused.G
>udgement reversed, appellants ac1uitted.
THE 3NITED STATES %&. 6AMES L. 4RO4ST
2
F#4T'* The defendant, >ames L. -robst, and another #merican named ann, were engaged in work
on a mine located in the municipality of asbate, where they gave employment to a number of
native laborers.
ann discharged one of these laborers named 'imeon 'aldivar, warned him not to come back on
the premises, and told the defendant not to employ him again, because he was a thief and a
disturbing element with the other laborers.
# few days afterwards, some time after ? o'clock on the morning of the 69th of >uly, 6@9:, 'aldivar,
in company with three of four others, went to the mine to look for work. The defendant, caught
sight of 'aldivar, ordered him o. the place, e"claiming in bad 'panish, M'igue, CamusNM 3-egoneB.
'aldivar made no move to leave, and although the order was repeated, merely smiled or grinned at
the defendant, whereupon the latter became enraged, took three steps toward 'aldivar, and struck
him a powerful blow with his closed !st on the left side, ,ust over the lower ribs, at the point where
the handle of 'aldivar's bolo lay against the belt from which it was suspended.
On being struck, 'aldivar threw up his hands, staggered. 3dio vueltas J spun around helplesslyB and
without saying a word, went away in the direction of his sister's house, which stood about A99
yards away, and about 699 feet up the side of a hill. $e died as he reached the door of the house,
and was buried some two or three days later.
ISS3E* Whether or not -robst is guilty of homicide and not homicide as a result of reckless
negligence.
HELD* L)'. We are satis!ed that the evidence of record leaves no room for reasonable doubt that
the defendant struck 'aldivar a powerful body blow with his closed !st; and that was far in e"cess
of such authority, and was, therefore, unlawful, and cannot be e"cused or ,usti!ed as an e"ercise of
necessary force in the e"ercise of a right
We are satis!ed also that the deceased came to his death as a result of the blow inPicted by the
defendant. Two or three days prior to his death he was employed as a laborer in defendant's mine;
his sister testi!ed that on the morning of the day he died, he left her house in apparent good health
and went to the mines to look for work; a short time afterwards he received a violent blow on his
lower left side, a region of the body where many of the vital organs are located; and immediately
thereafter, he stared up the short trail leading to his sister's house, and died as he reached the
door. &n the absence of evidence of any intervening cause, we think there can be no reasonable
doubt that his death resulted from the blow.
&n the case at bar the evidence conclusively establishes the voluntary, intentional, and unlawful
inPiction by the accused of a severe blow on the person of the deceased; and while it is true that
the accused does not appear to have intended to take the life of his victim, there can no doubt that
in thus striking the deceased, he intended to do him some in,ury, at least to the e"tent of inPicting
some degree of physical pain upon him, and he is therefore, criminally responsible for the natural,
even if une"pected results of his act, under the provisions of article 6 of the Penal 4ode, which
prescribes that
#ny person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even
though the wrongful act committed be di.erent from that which he had intended to commit.
&n such cases the law in these &slands does not e"cuse one from liability for the natural
conse1uences of hi illegal acts merely because he did not intend to produce such conse1uences,
but it does take that fact into consideration as an e"tenuating circumstance, as did the trial ,udge
in this case.
3